DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report Chattanooga Regional Freight Profile

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report Chattanooga Regional Freight Profile Chattanooga Regional Freight Profile final report prepared for Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency on behalf of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. June 17, 2011 www.camsys.com final report Chattanooga Regional Freight Profile prepared for Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency on behalf of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 9015 Mountain Ridge Drive, Suite 210 Austin, TX 78759 date June 17, 2011 Chattanooga Regional Freight Profile ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency on behalf of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) would like to thank all those from the various local governments and many others who helped contribute either by reviewing this document or by giving input. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency John Bridger, Executive Director Karen Rennich, Assistant Director & TPO Coordinator Strategic Long Range Planning: Melissa Taylor, Director and Patrick Hall, Sr. Transportation Planner Research and Analysis: Yuen Lee, Director and Nelson Galeano, Transportation Analyst Stakeholders Chattanooga Area Chamber of Commerce Chattanooga & North GA Transportation Clubs Incident Management Task Force Chattanooga-Hamilton County / North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) Manuel Rico, Chairperson Bob Colby, Vice Chairperson The Chattanooga-Hamilton County / North Georgia TPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and TPO Executive Board members representing the counties of Hamilton in Tennessee, and Dade, Catoosa and Walker in Georgia including their respective municipal governments within the Chattanooga-Hamilton County / North Georgia TPO Boundary. The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. This report was also supported and funded in part through programs of the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). The views and opinions of the authors [or agency] expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the states or U. S. Department of Transportation. ASSURANCE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (RPA) and Chattanooga-Hamilton County / North Georgia (CHCNGA) Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) do not discriminate in their programs, activities, or employment policies and procedures against qualified individuals because of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap. No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (Rehabilitation Act of 1973 29 U.S.C. § 794). No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and as amended, and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 P.I. 100.259). This includes funds received through the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), or other entities. The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (RPA) further assures that every effort will be made to ensure non-discrimination in all of its programs and activities, whether or not those programs or activities are federally funded. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 8071-030 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 Chattanooga Freight Activity............................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Overall Commodity Flows ........................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Truck Volumes ............................................................................................ 2-4 3.0 Freight Needs and Deficiencies ....................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Truck Congestion Hotspots ....................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Through Trucks ........................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Needs Associated with the Volkswagen Auto Plant ............................. 3-4 3.4 Other Highway Needs and Deficiencies ................................................. 3-5 3.5 Rail Needs and Deficiencies ...................................................................... 3-6 3.6 Waterway Needs ......................................................................................... 3-7 3.7 Air Cargo Needs ......................................................................................... 3-8 3.8 Multimodal/Policy Issues ......................................................................... 3-8 4.0 Planned and Programmed Freight Projects ................................................... 4-1 4.1 Underway or Complete Freight Projects ................................................. 4-1 4.2 Programmed Freight-Related Projects ..................................................... 4-2 4.3 Needs Plan/Illustrative Projects ............................................................... 4-4 4.4 Freight-Beneficial New Roadways ........................................................... 4-6 5.0 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Highway Solutions and Projects ............................................................... 5-1 5.2 Rail Solutions and Projects ........................................................................ 5-3 5.3 Waterway Solutions and Projects ............................................................. 5-3 5.4 Air Cargo Solutions and Projects ............................................................. 5-4 5.5 Multimodal/Policy Issues ......................................................................... 5-4 5.6 Summary of Freight Solutions .................................................................. 5-4 ii Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 8071-030 Chattanooga Regional Freight Profile List of Tables Table 2.1 Top 10 Commodities ................................................................................ 2-3 Table 3.1 Summary of O-D Survey Through Truck Percentages ....................... 3-4 Table 3.2 Total Daily Truck and Rail Traffic Generated by the VW Plant ........ 3-5 Table 3.3 Top 10 Grade Crossings by Total Daily Traffic.................................... 3-7 Table 4.1 2035 Freight-Related LRTP Underway or Completed Projects ......... 4-1 Table 4.2 2035 LRTP Programmed Projects .......................................................... 4-3 Table 4.3 2035 LRTP Needs Plan/Illustrative Projects ........................................ 4-4 Table 4.4 2035 LRTP Freight-Related New Road Alignments ............................ 4-6 Table 5.1 Chattanooga Freight Project Recommendations ................................. 5-4 Table 5.2 Policy/Institutional Recommendations ................................................ 5-7 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii Chattanooga Regional Freight Profile List of Figures Figure 1.1 Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia TPO Region ........... 1-2 Figure 1.2 Chattanooga Region Employment and GRP by Industry Sector ...... 1-3 Figure 1.3 Chattanooga Multimodal Freight Network ......................................... 1-5 Figure 2.1 Chattanooga Freight Flows by Type of Movement ............................. 2-1 Figure 2.2 Chattanooga Freight Mode Shares ........................................................ 2-2 Figure 2.3 Top 10 Commodities by Weight ............................................................ 2-3 Figure 2.4 TDOT Truck Traffic Volumes in Chattanooga ..................................... 2-5 Figure 2.5 Chattanooga Regional Truck Route Network ...................................... 2-6 Figure 3.1 Congested Locations on Key Truck Routes in Chattanooga .............. 3-2 Figure 3.2 Future Congestion Levels on the Truck Route Network .................... 3-3 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. v Chattanooga Regional Freight Profile 1.0 Introduction This report summarizes the key findings and recommendations from the Chattanooga Regional Freight Study. The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) commissioned this study to understand the importance of freight to the regional economy, area commodity flow and freight travel patterns, and how transportation needs and deficiencies are impacting users of the regional freight transportation system.1 The study region (shown in Figure 1.1) includes Hamilton County in Tennessee and parts of Dade, Catoosa, and Walker Counties in Georgia. The Chattanooga Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes all four counties, has a population
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Semiannual Report to Congress Go Green!
    Go Green! Consumes less energy than car or air travel* Semiannual Report to Congress Report #41 H 10/01/09 – 3/31/10 ON THE COVER Amtrak® Empire Builder® Message from the Inspector General am pleased to present the first Semiannual Report We made a series of recommendations to improve to Congress since my appointment as Amtrak the effectiveness and efficiency of training and IInspector General in November 2009. In addition employee development, focusing on developing and to reporting on the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) implementing a corporate-wide training and employee accomplishments during the six-month period ending development strategy. This would ensure that training March 31, 2010, I am identifying several significant aligns with the overall corporate strategy and provides challenges the OIG faces and the ongoing and planned employees with the skills needed to assume leadership actions we are pursuing to overcome the challenges. roles in the future. Significant Accomplishments Management recently agreed with all of our recommendations and provided a plan to implement During this semi-annual reporting period, the OIG them. It is important, however, for management to continued to identify opportunities to reduce costs, stay focused on making near-term improvements, improve management operations, enhance revenue, and because effective training and development practices institute more efficient and effective business processes. will be a key component of Amtrak’s ability to deliver For example: high quality services. H An OIG audit of the monthly on time performance H The Office of Investigations was instrumental in (OTP) bills and schedules from April 1993 through securing convictions and restitutions in multiple theft April 2004 disclosed that CSX inaccurately billed schemes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Story of Federal Express and Its Founder Fred Smith
    A Review of OVERNIGHT SUCCESS: FEDERAL EXPRESS AND ITS RENEGADE CREATOR by Vance Trimble reviewed by Bernhard Reichert INTRODUCTION This article is divided in two parts. The first part discusses common traits of new business ventures. The second, and major part, is the story of Federal Express and its founder Fred Smith. The primary source of the discussion of Federal Express is Vance Trimble’s Overnight Success.1 A REVIEW OF SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS VENTURES There seems to be a pattern exhibited by successful new companies which they seem to have in common: Communication: The management style in new companies is very informal. Communication and work organization is easy going. Work responsibilities are not clearly defined and change; job rotation is practiced; and responsibilities are overlapping. Open access to the person in charge seems to improve work motivation and lead to an esprit de corps. Thinking about this makes perfect sense. Complaining to your boss in a casual company is like a nice talk in a pub. It gives you the feeling your criticism, and you, are taken seriously, and by being able to go to the person in charge you feel it is the first step in turning around a bad situation. Once companies become larger and open access to the person in charge is no longer possible, workers can no longer direct 33 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LEADERSHIP - 2000-2001 their complaints to top management. Immediate superiors, who should be the person to talk to about suggestions and criticism, are busy meeting their performance targets. They do not appreciate people complaining and view complainants as potential sources of trouble.
    [Show full text]
  • Organizing Fedex Teamsters Gear up to Deliver Victory to Fedex Workers in THIS ISSUE 2 TEAMSTER NEWS
    INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS JULY/AUGUST 2009 TEAMSTERwww.teamster.org Organizing FedEx Teamsters Gear Up To Deliver Victory To FedEx Workers IN THIS ISSUE 2 TEAMSTER NEWS • Teamsters Trained To Protect Against Terrorism • Airline Division Saves United Airlines Jobs Organizing FedEx • U.S. Foodservice Victory Teamsters Gear Up To Deliver Victory • Teamsters End Stalemate To FedEx Workers In Buffalo • Infrastructure Gains To Benefi t Rail Teamsters Hope On The Horizon • Local 237 Political Mechanics And Related At Horizon Forum A Success Air Join Teamsters 14 • Teamster Leader Plays Himself In Film “Milk” Maximum Security 3,200 Cook County Corrections 20 ORGANIZING Offi cers Join Local 714 • Waste Workers Join Local 311 • Local 997 Welcomes Pension Tension Bakery Workers Is A Comfortable Retirement A Thing • Donut Delivery Drivers Of The Past? Join Local 25 • Walden Police Choose Teamsters Horse Sense • Alabama Truckers Carriage Drivers Get In Touch Join Local 402 With Their Roots 16 30 COURT MATERIALS 22 United And Determined TEAMSTER 2009 Unity Conference Focuses On Organizing, Political Victories www.teamster.org International Brotherhood of Teamsters 25 Louisiana Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20001-2198 202-624-6800 The Teamster (ISSN 1083-2394) is the official publica- tion of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 25 Louisiana Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20001-2198. It is published six times a year in January/February, March/April, May/June, July/August, September/ October, November/December. Periodical postage paid at Washington, DC and at additional mailing offices. JULY/AUGUST 2009 / VOLUME 106, NO. 4 © 2009 International Brotherhood of Teamsters. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without writ- ten permission is prohibited.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Maine State Rail Plan
    Draft Maine State Rail Plan TABLE OF CONTENTSview Chapter 1 Framework of the Maine State Rail Plan 1.1 Purpose of the State Rail Plan 1.1 1.2 Visions, Goals, Objectives of the Maine State Rail Plan 1.3 1.3 Transportation and Rail Planning in Maine 1.6 . Figure 1-1: MaineDOT Organizational Chart 1.7 . Figure 1-2: Maine’s MPO Areas 1.10 . Figure 1-3: Regional Planning and Development Councils 1.11 1.4 Public and Stakeholder Involvement 1.12 1.5 Review of Freight and Passenger Rail Planning Studies 1.17 1.6 Evaluation Criteria 1.18 Chapter 2 Freight Rail System 2.1 Overview 2.1 . Figure 2-1: North American Class I Rail Connections 2.2 . Figure 2-2: Map of MM&A Abandonment 2.6 . Figure 2-3: State of Maine Owned Rail Status 2.10 2.2 Freight Rail Industry Development 2.10 2.3 Maine’s Freight Railroad Facilities 2.12 2.4 International, National and Regional Context 2.21 . Figure 2-4: Canadian Class I Connections to Maine System 2.21 . Figure 2-5: Northeast U.S. Rail Freight System 2.22 . Figure 2-6: NS, CP, PAS and PAR Corridors 2.23 . Figure 2-7: Railroad Return on Investment and Cost of Capital 2.24 2.5 Freight Rail Issues and System Constraints 2.24 . Figure 2-8: Estimated National Highway System Peak-Period Congestion 2.25 . Figure 2-9: Estimated Rail Freight Service Levels, 2035 2.25 . Figure 2-10: Rail Clearance and Weight Constraints 2.28 .
    [Show full text]
  • Hell Gate Bridge
    Hell Gate Bridge Background • The Hell Gate Bridge rst opened to passenger rail revenue • The bridge was designed by engineer Gustav Lindenthal, who service on April 1, 1917, which created a continuous all-rail link was born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and immigrated to between Boston and Washington, D.C. through New York City. the United States in 1874. He collaborated on the design with It represented the completion of what we today call the North- architect Henry Hornbostel. east Corridor (Washington, D.C.-New York City-Boston). • The rst revenue passenger train to use the Hell Gate Bridge • The Hell Gate Bridge spans the East River and is the center- was the Federal Express, which traveled overnight between piece of a complex of bridges and viaducts that links Astoria, Boston and Washington, D.C. Queens, on Long Island, with the mainland in the the Bronx SM via Wards and Randalls Islands. • Currently, approximately 40 daily Amtrak Northeast Regional and Acela Express® trains cross the bridge each day, as well as • The Hell Gate Bridge was built to carry the New York Con- freight trains. necting Railroad (NYCR), which linked Manhattan north to the Bronx via Queens and south to Brooklyn. The NYCR is • April 1, 2017 marks the centennial of regularly-scheduled 8.96-miles long and cost $27 million to construct. It was jointly passenger rail service over the bridge. funded by the Pennsylvania and New York, New Haven & Hartford railroads, which were linked by the NYCR. Hell Gate Bridge Design and Construction • The bridge was built by the American Bridge Company, renowned for its work on bridges in the United States and • The Hell Gate Bridge was the longest steel arch bridge in the around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Line Rail: Its Role in Intermodalism and Distribution
    RAIL-RU4474 Short Line Rail: Its Role in Intermodalism and Distribution FINAL REPORT May 2009 (revised July 2009) Submitted by: John F. Betak, Ph.D.* ** Research Fellow Submitted to: Sotirios Theofanis Co-director, Freight and Maritime Program, and Maria Boile, Ph.D.** Associate Professor *Collaborative Solution s, LLC **Center for Advanced Infrastructure & Transportation (CAIT) Civil & Environmental Engineering Rutgers, The State University Piscataway, NJ 08854-8014 In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Disclaimer Statement "The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who is (are) responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the New Jersey Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation." The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. RAIL-RU4474 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Short Line Rail: Its Role in Intermodalism and Distribution May 2009 6. Performing Organization Code CAIT/Rutgers 7. Autho r ( s ) Dr. John F. Betak 8. Performing Organization Report No. RAIL-RU4474 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Railroads
    CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CRM VOLUME 22 NO. 10 1999 Historic Railroads A Living Legacy U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Cultural Resources PUBLISHED BY THE VOLUME 22 NO. 10 1999 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Contents ISSN 1068-4999 Information for parks, federal agencies, Indian tribes, states, local governments, Historic Railroads and the private sector that promotes and maintains high standards for pre­ serving and managing cultural resources Foreword 3 The Copper River and Katherine H. Stevenson Northwestern— Alaska's Bonanza DIRECTOR Railway 34 Robert Stanton Historic Railroads in the National Park Geoffrey Bleakley ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR System and Beyond 4 CULTURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP Susan Kraft and Gordon Chappell Frontiers in Transportation—Denali AND PARTNERSHIPS and the Alaska Railroad 36 Katherine H. Stevenson Railroads as World Heritage Sites 6 Ann Kain Colin Divall EDITOR Alaska Tourism, Skagway, and the Ronald M. Greenberg 19th- and 20th-century Potawatomi White Pass and Yukon Route 39 ASSOCIATE EDITOR Culture and the Railroad—The Rails Frank Norris Janice C. McCoy of Change 9 Kenneth C. Kraft and Lisa A. Kraft The Curious Case of the Buried GUEST EDITOR Locomotives—or Railroad Archeology Susan Kraft The Unheralded Resources of with a Vengeance 42 ADVISORS Golden Spike National Historic Site . .12 Gordon Chappell David Andrews Adrienne B. Anderson and Allegheny Portage Railroad— Editor, NPS Rick Wilson Joan Bacharach New Support for Old Arches 44 Museum Registrar, NPS Diane M. Garcia and Randall J. Biallas A Grand Canyon Railway —Project Historical Architect, NPS for a New Century-the 20th 15 Nancy L. Smith John A. Burns Architect, NPS Gordon Chappell "Paint and Park"—The Lehigh &c New Harry A.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Tri-State II High-Speed Rail Feasibility Study was to evaluate the potential for high-speed rail service in the Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor. The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative1 (MWRRI), the Base Case for Tri-State II, evaluated intermediate rail service; this study considered further improvements for a range of high-speed options. The Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) previously conducted a series of studies on regional rail options.2 Those studies, in conjunction with MWRRI results, show that high-speed service would be a viable economic investment for the region. Tri-State II evaluated incremental high speed (110 mph), high speed (150 mph) and very high speed (over 185 mph) train technologies that could be operated on various route alignments. Forecasts of ridership, revenue, operating costs and capital costs were created for the route and technology options using the RightTrack© software package.3 Ridership and revenue forecasts were developed based on travel characteristics, survey findings, and demographic statistics. After the financial return on investment was identified for each option, a Conceptual Implementation Plan was developed. TRAIN TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS MWRRI specified incremental passenger rail service (110 mph) as the base case for study. Straightening track curves to accommodate high-speed passenger trains requires significant capital costs; incremental service typically employs tilt mechanisms for passenger comfort and steerable bogies to maximize speeds around curves at relatively low levels of investment. Tri- State II followed the MWRRI study and evaluated Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) equipment as the generic representative for incremental (110 mph) service.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts State Rail Plan
    Massachusetts State Rail Plan Deval L. Patrick, Governor Timothy P. Murray, Lieutenant Governor Jeffrey B. Mullan, Secretary & Chief Executive Officer Richard A. Davey, Administrator, Rail & Transit Division prepared for Massachusetts Department of Transportation prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 695 Atlantic Ave, Second Floor Boston, MA 02111 September 2010 Massachusetts State Rail Plan Acknowledgements This comprehensive rail plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was funded by and prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). The research, analysis, findings, and plan development were guided by MassDOT staff. The rail plan was developed by a consultant team led by HDR Engineering, Inc. Subcontractors included: HNTB; Economic Development Research Group; Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.; Portscape; Egan Consulting Group; Transit Safety Management; and Planners Collaborative. The following individuals and organizations assisted in the development of the Massachusetts Rail Plan by providing information, expertise, and facilities: Freight and Rail Plan Working Group Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Brad MacDougall Boston Shipping Association, Richard Meyer Coalition of New England Companies for Trade, Joan M. Padduck CSX Transportation, Maurice O’Connell Federal Express, Robert Quinn Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Massachusetts Division, Michael Chong Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies, Timothy Brennan Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), John D. Ray Massachusetts
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Executive Summary The North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division (NCDOT) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) in conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose the implementation of high speed rail (HSR) passenger service within the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) from Washington DC to Charlotte, North Carolina. The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) designated the SEHSR corridor in 1992. The designation identified Washington, DC; Richmond, VA; Raleigh, NC; and Charlotte, NC as the major urban areas to be connected. The SEHSR corridor has since been extended to include South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and would connect the Northeast Corridor (NEC), the southeast, and the gulf coast. The fully extended corridor is illustrated in Figure ES-1. Nationally, the USDOT is seeking to develop an economically efficient, environmentally sound, and globally competitive nationwide intermodal transportation network. USDOT is developing a nationwide high speed rail network as one component of the nationwide intermodal transportation network, and the SEHSR corridor is part of that effort. The purpose for the development of the SEHSR is to offer a competitive transportation mode which would divert travelers from air and auto travel within the overall travel corridor, lessening the congestion in the corridor, improving modal balance and overall system efficiency, with a minimum of environmental impact. The system is needed because of the rapid economic and population growth in Virginia and North Carolina and the associated congestion this growth places on the existing and proposed transportation network. This growth also causes strains on the natural and human environment, and makes it increasingly difficult to increase the capacity of the existing transportation network with an acceptable level of negative impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bulletin CONTRACT 4 SUBWAY CONTROVERSY
    ERA BULLETIN — FEBRUARY, 2016 The Bulletin Electric Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated Vol. 59, No. 2 February, 2016 The Bulletin CONTRACT 4 SUBWAY CONTROVERSY Published by the Electric by Bernard Linder Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box (Continued from January, 2016 issue) 3323, New York, New York 10163-3323. In 1913, the City and Brooklyn Rapid ening of station platforms.” Transit signed Contract 4, which provided for During the last two years of the Hylan Ad- For general inquiries, the construction of certain lines and their op- ministration, Mr. Dahl was persistent, but he contact us at bulletin@ eration as a unified system. Eleven years was unable to persuade the City to build the erausa.org. ERA’s later, most of the construction was complet- Nassau Street Line. Fortunately, James J. website is ed, but the City failed to build the Nassau Walker succeeded John F. Hylan on January www.erausa.org. Street Line. After the Board of Transportation 1, 1926. About two years later, contracts for Editorial Staff: replaced the Transit Commission on June 1, construction of the line were awarded to Mar- Editor-in-Chief: 1924, BMT’s Chairman, Gerhard Dahl, sent cus Contracting Company for the portion Bernard Linder the Board a letter requesting that the City north of Liberty Street and to Moranti and Tri-State News and Commuter Rail Editor: complete construction of the items in Con- Raymond for the remaining portion. Work Ronald Yee tract 4 in accordance with the terms of the was to be completed in 39 months and was North American and World contract.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lancaster Chapter, N.R.H.S. Board of Directors Wishes All
    1935 - 2013 VOLUME 44 NUMBER 12 DISTRICT 2 - CHAPTER W EBSITE : W W W .NRHS 1. ORG DECEMBER 2013 The Lancaster Chapter, N.R.H.S. Board of Directors Wishes All Chapter Members, Friends and E-Mail Readers a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year Lancaster Dispatcher Page 2 December 2013 THE POWER DIRECTOR “NEWS FROM THE RAILROAD WIRES ” AMTRAK ‘KEYSTONE’ MAKES EXTENDED RUN ON Boardman. “Amtrak is a major driver in the rebirth of an American rail SEPTA manufacturing and supplier base that is strengthening our national PHILADELPHIA – An Amtrak Keystone Service train economic health.”The new long distance cars will replace and supplement mistakenly ran the length of a SEPTA commuter line the existing fleet and allow cars built in the 1940s and 1950s to be retired. on Nov. 14, providing some "rare mileage" for Amtrak The sleeper, diner and baggage/dormitory cars will likely operate on eastern equipment. The train was being turned due to a faulty routes such as Lake Shore Limited, Cardinal, Crescent, and Silver Service cab car. with the baggage cars used nationwide. One of each type of car will be field tested this winter with the first units expected to enter revenue service Train No. 644, with 130 passengers aboard, was en during the summer of 2014. All 130 cars are expected to be delivered by the route from Harrisburg to end of 2015. New York by way of Philadelphia's 30th Street Passengers will experience many improvements including: modern interiors Station when it developed with better layouts; better lighting and more efficient air conditioning and a problem with former heating systems; additional outlets to power personal electronic devices; Metroliner cab car No.
    [Show full text]